Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Tim Alberts]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Tim Alberts wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, everything that is beneficial about Fedora comes with 
>> the price of 'not quite as well tested' status as RedHat or CentOS.
>>
>> Honestly I feel like a backstabber by using CentOS because I've been 
>> with Fedora since before Fedora (RedHat 5.1 was my first Linux 
>> experience), and using CentOS is reaping the benefits with no 
>> contribution.
>
> If you go back that far, you should realize that fedora is 
> approximately like the old RH X.0 releases (X from 4 to 7) and Centos 
> is like the old RH X.2 or X.3 releases (free download of the tested 
> and more stable releases).  The numbering scheme is just different 
> now.  The for-pay-only RHEL is the part that diverged from the old 
> scheme.
Yeah there are different groups filling the roles all along the 
life-cycle of each release version.
You could even say that CentOS provides what FedoraLegacy intended to 
provide.
Not really the point of what I'm saying though...
>
>> Is there a way for Fedora to deal with more of the bugs before 
>> releasing and still remain a free distribution?  I don't know how.  
>> If they do manage to do this, what would be the point of paying for 
>> RedHat?
>
> You aren't supposed to be paying for the software in RHEL, you pay for 
> the support service.
>
<splithair/>  Of course.

Again my question, how can Fedora produce a better tested product?  The 
way it is, it's dis-respectful to the Fedora project for people to post 
things like:

http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2008/02/11/fedora-makes-a-terrible-server/

because it is the work of the Fedora Project and the users who end up 
testing the software and suffering through software bugs and poorly 
packaged projects.  CentOS and RedHat would be no where near as stable 
without Fedora.